Critical Update! USGS Expands Mineral List

On Nov. 7, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) finalized its 2025 Critical Minerals List. The final list includes all 50 minerals that appeared on the 2022 Critical Minerals List, plus 10 new minerals—boron, copper, lead, metallurgical coal, phosphate, potash, rhenium, silicon, silver and uranium—for a total of 60. According to the Energy Act of 2020, critical minerals are commodities that are deemed essential to U.S. economic or national security; have a supply chain that is vulnerable to disruption; and are essential in the manufacturing of key products. USGS’ list serves as a foundational resource for industry and government stakeholders as it guides federal investments, permitting decisions and the government’s broader mineral strategy. This latest list, which greatly expands the number of minerals deemed “critical,” highlights President Donald Trump’s continued efforts to diversify supply chains, reduce dependence on foreign sources—particularly China—and strengthen national security. This alert provides an overview of the benefits a “critical” designation brings, an analysis of the 2025 list and its impact on the administration’s efforts to secure a domestic source of critical minerals.

Benefits to Being a Critical Mineral

A “critical” designation unlocks the following suite of federal benefits:

• Funding Opportunities: The departments of Energy, War and the Interior regularly issue funding opportunities for critical minerals projects. While the Trump administration has not released critical minerals-related funding opportunities at the same pace the Biden administration did, the Department of Energy (DOE) announced in August its intent to issue funding opportunities totaling nearly $1 billion to advance the production, processing and recovery of critical minerals, as well as related battery manufacturing and recycling efforts.

• Expedited Permitting: Projects involving critical minerals may qualify for accelerated permitting processes under Title 41 of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST-41) program. FAST-41 status provides key benefits, including coordinated permitting timetables, federal agency oversight and dedicated support to keep environmental reviews on track. While FAST-41’s current guidance allows consideration of all mining projects and for all minerals, Trump, in Executive Order 14241, “Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production” (EO 14241), established a process for the National Energy Dominance Council (NEDC) to elevate critical minerals projects for expedited environmental and permitting reviews. Since then, the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (Permitting Council), which tracks and oversees the FAST-41 project portfolio, has added more than two-dozen critical mineral mining projects to its Federal Permitting Dashboard. Ensuring that critical minerals projects receive and enjoy expedited permitting is important given U.S. mines take an average of 29 years to develop from first discovery to first production according to a 2024 S&P Global report. This is the second slowest in the world, only behind Zambia (34 years).

• Loan Guarantees: The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) restructured DOE’s Title 17 Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment Financing program to authorize the secretary of energy to guarantee loans up to $250 billion through Sept. 30, 2028. According to a proposed DOE rulemaking titled “Energy Dominance Financing Amendments,” the Trump administration intends to limit these funds to facilities or associated technologies “used for enabling the identification, leasing, development, production, processing, transportation, transmission, refining, and generation needed for energy and critical minerals.” Additionally, OBBBA directed $500 million to the Department of War’s (DOW) Credit Program Account under the Office of Strategic Capital (OSC) to provide loans, loan guarantees and technical assistance to critical mineral industries.

• Defense Production Act Support: The Defense Production Act (DPA) plays a crucial role in accelerating the domestic production of critical minerals, with funding managed by program offices within DOW. Under the DPA, the U.S. government is empowered to provide loans, loan guarantees and purchase commitments to expand or preserve domestic production capabilities. EO 14241 invoked the DPA to accelerate U.S. domestic mineral-production efforts by delegating several DPA authorities, particularly under Title III of the act, to the DOW and the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) and waived certain requirements to expedite action.

• Tax Incentives: The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) established the Section 45X Advanced Manufacturing Production Credit to subsidize the production of certain goods, including critical minerals. According to the credit guidance, critical minerals are eligible for credits equal to 10% of the production costs of the given mineral. This includes costs associated with extracting, acquiring, processing, purifying, refining and converting the minerals. The credit remains available through 2030, but only for the 50 minerals included on the 2022 Critical Minerals List. As of now, there are no efforts to amend the Internal Revenue Code to have the Section 45X Credit cover minerals included on the 2025 Critical Minerals List.

• Stockpiling Efforts: On Jan. 20, Trump signed Executive Order 14154, “Unleashing American Energy” (EO 14154). As part of this order, he directed the secretary of war to review the posture and management of the National Defense Stockpile (NDSTF) to “to ensure that the National Defense Stockpile will provide a robust supply of critical minerals in event of future shortfall.” As outlined in our Nov. 10, Client Alert, Congress, through the OBBBA, provided the DOW with significant resources to bolster critical minerals production. Specifically, Section 20004 appropriated $2 billion for FY25 to expand the NDSTF through critical minerals purchases.
  
  In October, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) filings highlighted that the Trump administration has begun efforts to procure a $1 billion critical minerals stockpile. Specifically, DLA is intending to buy up to $500 million of cobalt, $245 million of antimony, $100 million of tantalum and $45 million of scandium. DLA has also sought information for the potential acquisition of tungsten, bismuth and indium to add to the stockpile.
  
  
• Seabed Mining Opportunities: While the Trump administration has focused heavily on increasing production of critical minerals across U.S. public lands, Trump has also taken major steps towards seabed mining. On April 24, Trump signed Executive Order 14285, “Unleashing America’s Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources,” which directed federal agencies to help establish the United States as a global leader in seabed mineral exploration, collection and processing. The directive covers critical minerals, gold and any other mineral the NEDC deems essential. On Nov. 10, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management announced it had completed Area Identification offshore American Samoa and launched a Request for Information and Interest for seabed mining to take place offshore the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. In June, the Department of the Interior (DOI) announced new policies to streamline the exploration, post-lease operations and production activities associated with the development of offshore critical minerals.

New Critical Minerals

As noted above, the 10 minerals added to the 2025 Critical Minerals List will now qualify for a range of federal incentives and support programs. Several of these additions were not included in the 2025 Draft List and were only added after strong advocacy from industry groups and lawmakers. Others, such as copper, potash and uranium, had previously been supported for inclusion by USGS Director Ned Mamula before the draft list’s release. The following section highlights the most significant new entries and their implications for U.S. policy and industry.

Copper

USGS’ decision to include copper on the 2025 Critical Minerals List is long-awaited. While the Department of Energy (DOE) designated copper as a “critical material” in 2023, it never appeared on any USGS critical minerals list. During the Biden administration, USGS said the agency would not recommend copper’s inclusion on the 2021 Draft List because its “supply chain vulnerability is mitigated by domestic production, lack of import dependence, and diverse, secure sources of supply.” Former USGS Director David Applegate reiterated this rationale in letters to senators after they called on the agency to reconsider its decision to exclude it. “The U.S. has significant domestic copper production and a diversity of foreign supply sources,” Applegate wrote.

Despite the Biden administration’s refusal to designate copper as a critical mineral, lawmakers continued their advocacy efforts. In 2023, Rep. Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ) introduced H.R.3885, the Copper is Critical Act, which would have secured copper’s critical mineral status. The following year, Rep. Ciscomani introduced H.R.8446, the Critical Mineral Consistency Act of 2024, which would have amended and expanded the definition of “critical mineral” to include copper and other “critical materials” identified by DOE. The bill passed through the House with significant bipartisan support. The Senate companion bill, S.714, passed out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, but was never considered on the floor.

Copper has key applications across the U.S. economy. Its anti-corrosive properties are key in military vehicles such as aircraft, naval vessels and Coast Guard ships. In addition, copper alloys, when paired with nickel and lead, are used to produce military gear and body armor. Copper’s electrical conductivity and durability are also key for electrical wiring, roofing, plumbing, industrial machinery and renewable energy infrastructure. In July, the Trump administration imposed a 50% tariff on imports of semi-finished copper products like these, and while the levy will protect domestic businesses, it will not address the country’s ongoing copper shortage to the same degree this critical designation will.

According to USGS’ 2024 Copper Commodity report, the United States produces just over half of the refined copper it consumes, as Chile, Canada and Peru supply more than 90% of U.S. imports. As copper is often called the “metal of electrification,” global demand is expected to surge, with some estimates suggesting that the world will need to produce more copper in the next decade than it did over the previous century. This projected surge underscores the need for the United States to expand its copper production and processing capacity. According to the same S&P Global report, however, copper mines in the United States are among the slowest to develop, taking an average of 24 years to become operational. The federal benefits unlocked by copper’s critical status, namely expedited permitting processes, are likely to alleviate some concerns.

Uranium

Public comments and interagency recommendations led to many of the late additions to the 2025 Critical Minerals List, including uranium. According to the Federal Register notice, DOE recommended uranium due to its importance in defense and energy applications. In 2018, during the first Trump administration, USGS recognized uranium as critical, but the Biden administration removed it from the 2022 Critical Minerals List, asserting the Energy Act of 2020 excludes “fuel minerals” from the term’s definition. “While uranium has important non-fuel uses, it is a major fuel commodity in the United States,” the notice read. On Jan. 20, Trump signed EO 14154, which directed USGS to consider updating the list with uranium included.

The decision to re-designate uranium as a critical mineral comes at a time when the United States is importing over 95% of its uranium—much of it from foreign adversaries—and has very limited processing capabilities. There is just one commercial uranium enrichment facility and one domestic uranium conversion facility located in the United States. Like copper, uranium is likely to benefit from its inclusion on the 2025 Critical Minerals List.

Metallurgical Coal

Trump first signaled a desire to designate metallurgical coal as a critical mineral in his April 8 Executive Order 14261, “Reinvigorating America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Industry and Amending Executive Order 14241.” In this order, Trump directed the secretary of the interior to explore the merits of including it on USGS’ next critical minerals list, noting its use in producing coke for iron and steelmaking. The order also designated coal as a “mineral” under EO 14241 to expedite the permitting of coal projects. Given the United States is the second-largest metallurgical coal exporter in the world and produces most of the metallurgical coal it consumes, its new designation as a critical mineral will not address foreign dependence but will bolster domestic production capabilities.

Phosphate and Potash

Like copper, lawmakers and industry stakeholders pushed hard for USGS to include potash and phosphate on its critical minerals list. During the 118th Congress, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) introduced legislation to achieve this goal. The bills failed to see action in either chamber, but they highlighted the importance of these crop nutrients to U.S. food security and the country’s broader agricultural sector.

Following this, USGS recommended the inclusion of potash on the 2025 Draft List but left off phosphate. On Sept. 4, the Fertilizer Institute and the Agricultural Retailers Association praised the Trump administration’s recognition of potash, but demanded phosphate be included too. Later, a bipartisan group of lawmakers sent a letter to DOI Secretary Doug Burgum urging him to include phosphate on the 2025 Critical Minerals List. As noted in the Federal Register notice, the U.S. Department of Agriculture eventually pushed USGS to include phosphate on this year’s list.

Since 2020, annual potash imports have accounted for over 90% of U.S. consumption. The United States sources most of its potash from Canada as it is the leading global producer, followed by Russia, China and Belarus. In 2023, the U.S. potash production constituted less than 1% of global production. While the United States is a leading producer of phosphate rock, China is the largest exporter of phosphate fertilizers. In 2021, China restricted diammonium phosphate, monoammonium phosphate and phosphoric acid exports, leading to increased fertilizer prices. This dependency highlights the U.S. agriculture industry’s vulnerability to future supply shocks and underscores the importance of designating phosphate as a critical mineral.

Next Steps

While the Energy Act of 2020 requires that USGS review the list every three years to reflect new data and evolving supply chains, the Federal Register notice states that USGS will update the list “not less than biannually.” Regularly revised lists will enable the United States to quickly adapt to emerging supply chain disruptions, including those posed by foreign adversaries, the adoption of novel technologies critical to national security and changing military and technological demands.

Brownstein’s team has deep experience in the critical minerals space and sustained engagement with the agencies central to the administration’s financing strategy. We work closely with private industry, investors and foreign governments to support supply chain security, navigate U.S. financing tools and identify opportunities for public-private partnerships. We are prepared to assist clients in assessing project eligibility, coordinating with relevant agencies and developing strategies to secure federal support in a rapidly evolving investment environment.

---

THIS DOCUMENT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE YOU WITH GENERAL INFORMATION REGARDING NATURAL RESOURCES. THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT ARE NOT INTENDED TO PROVIDE SPECIFIC LEGAL ADVICE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT OR IF YOU NEED LEGAL ADVICE AS TO AN ISSUE, PLEASE CONTACT THE ATTORNEYS LISTED OR YOUR REGULAR BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP ATTORNEY. THIS COMMUNICATION MAY BE CONSIDERED ADVERTISING IN SOME JURISDICTIONS.